PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I stand by the idea that any part being deemed unconstitutional will mobilize Democrats, while anything but full repeal will demoralize Republicans.
The best part of all this is that Romney can't say shit about it because his name's all over it. LOL
The best part of all this is that Romney can't say shit about it because his name's all over it. LOL
I went to an eye doctor last week, which I've been putting off for some time. I also had a physical with my doctor, getting some blood work done, and then I also got a cleaning scheduled with my dentist yesterday. Hopefully I don't get sick/injured before I can come by healthcare if the SC repeals it next week. Anyone else under their parents healthcare going to be screwed?
Heh. My brother turns 26 next month, so he would have been kicked off it anyway. It sucks for everyone else though.
I was screwed before the law came into being.
Before the revision, it was 23 years old or as soon as you stopped being a full time student. I graduated before 23...
The part about staying on family's insurance is great, and I wish I could have taken part of it. The part about getting rid of the preexisting condition is also great.
Had we had those provisions before, when I went into grad school I would have stayed on wonderful insurance that would have actually taken care of my $5000 worth of dental work and my probably $1000 worth of minor surgery I just had. In addition, I would have seamlessly been able to transition over to my school's insurance in the fall without worrying about not being covered for my eczema and asthma for a year like I was when I transitioned to it in 2008.
Fuck the Republican's crusade against healthcare.
Im 24 :/
PhoenixDark
Banned
Dental isn't covered under the health care plan. A lot of the plans I deal with at work cover children until they're 25, so make sure you know what your parents plan is and maximize your benefits before you become ineligible.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Take your pick:
A) Gallup reads GAF and is trolling Diablos
B) Obama really is in good shape and that Bloomberg poll is totally true
C) Tracking polls are notoriously unreliable and volatile
It's C but I'll gladly take Obama at 51%.
In the primaries, sure. Which exemplifies the pressure already being applied to mainstream conservatives to become even more ideological and intransigent. And they have already exerted a considerable effect on the Republican leadership. But if they come to dominate the Republican Caucus, even the Republican leadership might be imperiled. A revolt would not surprise me.
Irrespective of the decision, Republicans are not going to be demoralized. Republicans are primed to oust Obama. So either the decision is a victory, or it renders their victory even more essential. Their enmity towards Obama is intense. They'll not abstain. Admittedly, I don't envisage the SCOTUS's decision will have a substantial effect on the election regardless of party affiliation.
Wheeee!
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
What's it say? It's not really loading on my phone
Aaron Strife
Banned
The approval is 3 days while the head to head is a week.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
Then there would be nothing to talk about. Especially every time there's a bomb like gay marriage support or a Romney gaffe.
I mean a lot of people thought that Santorum or Gingrich actually had a chance for several weeks because of how erratic polling was.
Terra Firma
Banned
This US election is kinda insignificant on the global scale, since we know Obama turned out to be Bush III and Romney will be exactly the same. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is so miniscule, it's insane for us outsiders to see these parties claiming to be distinct.
(I'm Canadian, don't shoot me)
(I'm Canadian, don't shoot me)
On a scale of one to 1-5 (1 being not likely, 5 being very likely), what are the chances of each of these scenarios happening?
- HCR is kept in its entirety
- Parts of HCR are removed, leaving everything else still in place
- HCR is thrown out entirely
EDIT: On a personal level, I'm fucked if they throw the whole thing.
- HCR is kept in its entirety
- Parts of HCR are removed, leaving everything else still in place
- HCR is thrown out entirely
EDIT: On a personal level, I'm fucked if they throw the whole thing.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'd expect better from a Canadian. I know for a fact you guys have good schools. That's a clown post, bro
Obama is Bush III how exactly? The US election is insignificant on a global scale, are you serious? A Romney victory would likely usher in some ugly austerity, the last thing the global economy needs.
The Librarian
Banned
This is a pretty ignorant post. What's the point of it?
It's unlikely, from what I've read, that the entire law will be thrown out. I'd less likely than the whole law coming out entirely intact (which is small). The most likely scenario will be that parts of the law, most likely the individual mandate, will be thrown out. However, the effects of removing the individual mandate from the law are uncertain, and so its future remains in doubt.
This is all assuming Obama wins in November and Republicans don't take back all three branches of government.
HCR is kept in its entirety: 2.5
Parts of HCR are removed, leaving everything else still in place: 4.5
HCR is thrown out entirely: 3
Obama is a lot like Bush when it comes to curtailing civil liberties. In fact, he's a whole lot worse than Bush in some ways in this regard. And his transparency record has been shoddy at best - something he ran on, but common reports suggest he's even less accessible than his three immediate predecessors. He's also a bastard when it comes to deporting immigrants, and a hypocritical fucktard when it comes to allowing states the freedom to choose what they do with medical marijuana.
Obama has done a lot of things differently too, but don't try to act like he's massively different. That's part of what makes this political cycle so awful - Obama has in a lot of ways adopted the Republican/compassionate conservative points of view on a lot of issues, and the Republicans went even FURTHER right to disavow what they previously believed in. So everyone is just being batshit lately.
Terra Firma
Banned
From a global interventionist perspective:
Obama continued Bush's wars. Obama went into Libya. Obama is not shutting down the Iran rhetoric. Obama's administration appears to be eyeing Syria (although I'm not opposed to this one just as how I wish the world did more for Rwanda).
From a civil liberties perspective:
Obama has been WORSE for civil liberties than Bush. He has the right to assassinate American citizens around the world (he signed it into law). He ramped up the use of drones to indiscriminately kill women and children and call it collateral damage. Wiretapping and extraordinary rendition continues under his administration. Torture of terror suspects continues under his administration. What is the worst offense is that a lot of civil liberty groups and anti-war groups became complacent after Obama was voted in. Where have the big anti-war rallies gone? Why isn't there as much talk about the loss of civil liberties that continues under Obama? This is almost criminal negligence on the part of the American public, where it has completely turned a blind eye to the technically illegal and criminal actions that continue under Obama (even if they were started under Bush), as if the American public has come to believe that all those problems have simply disappeared.
As for economy:
What is Romney going to do that is anything dramatically different than what Obama has been doing? Also, some Eurozone countries may have been badly affected, but Canada has been relatively safe compared to America. Our economy has been thriving for a while so I don't think anything Romney has proposed to do will hurt the global economy. It may or may not be detrimental to the average American, but it won't affect us outsiders in the least bit.
There is no clear cut difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Anyone who is not an American who has observed American politics can easily tell you that. In Canada, for example, we have the Liberals, the Conservatives, the New Democrats, and the Greens - all are viable parties, with power mostly shifting between the Liberals and Conservatives (and recently, the NDP becoming a major player due to the downfall of the Liberals). All have great differences among themselves. To us outsiders, both the Republicans and the Democrats are right of centre, with the Republicans a bit further right, whereas in Canada, the Conservatives are equivalent to your Democrats, the Liberals are left of centre, and the NDP are even more left.
Within the Democratic party, you'll find people that are identical to Republicans in every single way except party affiliation (commonly found in the southern states). Within the Republican party, you'll find people that are identical to Democrats (especially in states like California and New York). There is no real difference between the parties.
The two-party dichotomy that exists in the US is only based on rhetoric. On peripheral, insignificant issues, the parties differ, yes, but on fundamentals, they are identical.
What I can tell you is that candidate Obama of 2008 may have been left of centre, but President Obama is set firmly to the right. Only the goalposts are changing, with even Republicans agreeing on issues such as gay rights. If Obama was truly different and the Democratic party was truly different, it would, for example, push for complete universal healthcare, a right that is provided in every developed nation in the world. Even the right wingers in Canada see healthcare as a fundamental right.
The problem is, Americans (generally speaking) are not comfortable with the idea of socialist principles. "Socialism" is seen as a curse word, "liberal" is seen as an insult. Americans become angry the moment someone suggests raising their taxes, whereas a lot of countries like Canada understand that at times, more has to be paid for society to function. Some Americans have a deep distrust of their government (you can see a lot of this in the new fad which is the Libertarian movement; I'm all for this movement since it benefits the international community, but may be detrimental to the average American). The problem is that some of these people have their mindset stuck in the 19th century, before the advent of globalization. Anyway that's enough typing for now and this entire post has been a disorganized mess.
WTF is Gallup smoking this year?
I think the mandate will be shitcanned while everything else is left in place (to fall apart while Congressional GOPers celebrate the bill's slow death)
HCR is kept in its entirety: 1.5
Parts of HCR are removed, leaving everything else still in place: 3
HCR is thrown out entirely: 0.5
I think the mandate will be shitcanned while everything else is left in place (to fall apart while Congressional GOPers celebrate the bill's slow death)
HCR is kept in its entirety: 1.5
Parts of HCR are removed, leaving everything else still in place: 3
HCR is thrown out entirely: 0.5
Hobbestetrician
Member
As an American currently in Canada, I can tell you that most people I speak to do not feel at all like Terra Firma does. What part of Canada do you happen to live in?
Wat?
PhoenixDark
Banned
lol. Trust me, health insurance companies will go ape shit if they're forced to cover patients with pre-existing conditions without a mandate.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Mandate being struck down > ACA being upheld in entirety > everything being struck down. imo.
I'm sure big pharma will put pressure on the GOP to pass a fix through the House and Senate, unless pre-existing conditions get thrown out with the mandate. I doubt they'll want to be footing the bill for that.
Funny, if Democrats just made it a tax that paid for everyone's healthcare (in the form of rebates or Medicaid), this wouldn't be a problem! But we can't use the word tax or we might lose the Hou-oh shit.
I'm sure big pharma will put pressure on the GOP to pass a fix through the House and Senate, unless pre-existing conditions get thrown out with the mandate. I doubt they'll want to be footing the bill for that.
Funny, if Democrats just made it a tax that paid for everyone's healthcare (in the form of rebates or Medicaid), this wouldn't be a problem! But we can't use the word tax or we might lose the Hou-oh shit.
Terra Firma
Banned
Toronto.
Care to show any major issues where the Republicans and Democrats differ significantly in not just rhetoric but also practice?
This actually has been the case for a while now. Even when I was in university, any course I took which made a reference to the political system in the US would point out that the Republicans and Democrats bicker over pretty unsubstantial issues but essentially, they're both the same.
Actually, let me just pose a general question: can you guys list any substantial differences between the two parties?
Aaron Strife
Banned
LGBT rights.
Also, +5 bounce to job hiring. Really wacky day all around. It will normalize in three days when this rolls off, but from what I've seen so far this cycle Gallup has been all over the map (and with a heavy GOP lean to boot).
- HCR is kept in its entirety | 2
- Parts of HCR are removed, leaving everything else still in place | 4
- HCR is thrown out entirely | 1
Ginsburg sort of gave it away. I think the mandate is pitched, and the dissenting opinion will provide both counter argument and recommendation for how to repair the law, replacing the mandate.
PhoenixDark
Banned
He ended the Iraq war and escalated the Afghanistan war while listing an end date - just as he said he'd do. On Libya, I still don't think we should have intervened, but I don't consider it a Bush-like decision. The US stopped a genocide and ended a tyrant's reign with $1b and no American casualties. That's nothing like a Bush foreign policy decision, to put it lightly.
On Iran...sure whatever; I'd argue US presidents are forced to do this due to Israel. It doesn't mean we're going to attack Iran, and I'd rather have Obama in control of that decision than Bush or McCain. Or Romney. On Syria...we aren't going to do shit and you know it. China and Russia are calling the shots.
I'll agree with this
Have you been paying attention at all? Romney supports the draconian Paul Ryan budget and wants to give the rich billions in tax cuts while raising taxes on the poor, and cutting services even the middle class depends on. He wants to cut trillions out of the deficit and increase military spending significantly. He (allegedly) does not support stimulus of any kind, and is on record saying he will not accept $1 in tax increases in exchange for $10 in spending cuts. You honestly think this will have no impact on the global economy?
There's no question democrats are rather conservative by many standards, but over the last 8 years we've seen republicans move so far to the right that their previous positions are considered "liberal." Meanwhile democrats continue moving to the center, which is really the right now due to how far the right has moved.
But on a series of areas - from immigration, taxes, foreign policy, abortion, gay rights, etc - there are huge differences. To deny this would be ignorant.
Aaron Strife
Banned
- Only pollster in 2008 to show both Obama and McCain up by more than double digits at any time.GhaleonEB said:
- Only pollster in 2008 to produce two separate national polls that had Obama leading one and McCain leading the other. It wasn't even MoE crap, Obama was up 8 and McCain was up 4.
I don't know why Gallup is treated as the gold standard of national polls, Pew is much better.
Hobbestetrician
Member
I would think the Healthcare Act being discussed on this page is a good example. No, its not universal healthcare but it is better than nothing. Of course this could no longer be the case in 24 hours.
Health care, gay rights, immigration, unions, fiscal policy, abortion, women's rights in the workplace among others, but those are big ones.
You just flat out aren't paying attention if you think the two parties are two sides of the same coin right now.
Terra Firma
Banned
Again, this isn't something where either party is on a common platform. There are many Democrats against LGBT unions just as there are many Republicans for LGBT unions.
The Iraq War would have ended, Obama or no Obama since its aim (to kill Saddam because Bush Jr wanted revenge for his father's bruised ego) was accomplished. There was no reason to stay and it had become unpopular, regardless of which party one belonged to. Even Afghanistan is being seen as a lost cause by both Republicans and Democrats, now that the killing of Bin Laden has satisfied their bloodlust (never mind the probably million(s) in deaths and casualties).
Again, why would Obama not just shut down this talk of war instead of letting the drums beat on? Why does he allow assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists? Why did he commit an act of war against Iran by trying to engage it in cyber warfare? If the tables were turned, Tehran would be up in smokes yesterday.
As I said, those will be detrimental to the average American (and I think Americans would have to be not all there in their heads to vote for someone who'd screw them over so badly for trickle-down economics that never work) but it won't have as great an impact on the global economy as you'd think. Neither Obama's nor Romney's plans will be game changers.
And I'd be surprised if Romney would actually go through with such a plan. Even Bush Jr was for the bailouts.
The Librarian
Banned
Find me ten Republican legislators for LGBT marriage. I'll open this up to state legislators too so it's easier for you.
Take your time.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Fucking bullshit.
Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal House vote
Democrats
Yay - 235
Nay - 15
Didn't vote - 5
Republicans
Yay - 15
Nay - 160
Didn't vote - 4
In the Senate -
Democrats
Yay - 55/57 (Lieberman and Sanders are independents caucusing with Democrats, both voted yes)
Nay - 0
Didn't vote - 1
Republicans
Yay - 8
Nay - 31
Didn't vote - 3
It's not gay marriage but LGBT issues encompass much more than that, and it's politically much easier to explain to your constituents why you support gays in the military than gay marriage. But even then, President Obama (the de facto leader of the Democratic Party) supports gay marriage and Mitt Romney does not.
Terra Firma
Banned
You really believe that there's an official party line for any of those issues?
Care to tell me the hows of your list?
Health care: I don't see a difference. One wants to mandate health care, other wants to give "choice". I don't see universal health care. And no, mandating health care is nowhere near universal health care because in a mostly capitalist economy like the US, the markets love to play ball and mandating healthcare may even result in higher unemployment or increased self-employment or people willing to work for lowered wages to keep their jobs.
Gay rights: How does this work when California and many states (I remember North Carolina) banned gay marriages? Isn't California supposed to be a Democratic stronghold? Gay rights aren't something that the Democratic party can say is an exclusive issue to its camp since many Republicans would disagree. It all depends on where you are in the US. I'm pretty sure Arnold was against proposition 8 and he's a Republican. You're implying that social conservatism is exclusive to the Republicans (it isn't). Many Democratic leaders and groups, especially in the religious Black community, oppose gay marriages.
Immigration: Again, this all depends on where you are. The Republicans under Bush Jr, for example, were pretty pro-immigration.
Unions: Again, some Republicans don't like unions but to paint them all with this brush is dishonest. There are some Democrats that are against unions as well. It isn't very black and white.
Fiscal policy: Once more, this depends on where you are. It isn't a cut and dry difference. For example, Catholic groups came out against Paul Ryan's plan because it was cutting too much from social programs - and Catholic groups are usually in the Republican camp because of perceived social conservatism.
Abortion: Once more, depends on where you are. Many Republicans who are fiscal conservatives but social liberals don't want to deny a woman's right to her body so it isn't a cut and dry issue as you're making it out to be.
Equal pay: So, once again, not a black and white issue. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of not providing equal pay for equal work.
What we see here is that both parties are extremely similar since the extremes on any issue you list will be found in both parties. Some issues tend to be more popular in certain regions of the country but you cannot paint the entire party with the same brush, either Republican or Democrat.
lol
Terra Firma
Banned
Those votes don't matter. You know why? Because I can almost guarantee you that if these constituencies currently filled by Democrats were Republicans, they'd vote similarly on this issue. Similarly, if those constituencies being represented by the Republicans were filled with Democrats, those Democrats would have voted "Nay". So it all depends on where they come from, not necessarily party lines. A Democrat from Mississippi is the same as an average Republican just how a Republican from California is the same as the average Democrat. It's just that Republicans tend to be elected more often in these conservative areas and Democrats tend to be elected more often in these liberal areas.
And you're really buying into Obama aren't you? There have been many people in the LGBT community who don't buy Obama's half-hearted political BS. If he felt this way about gay marriage, why did he not do a single goddamn thing about it during his four years in office when it is a fundamental, human rights issue?
Aaron Strife
Banned
Here's a list of currently-serving US senators from the Democratic Party who are on record for supporting same-sex marriage:
Harry Reid (D–Nevada)
Daniel Akaka (D–Hawaii)
Max Baucus (D–Montana)
Michael Bennet (D–Colorado)
Richard Blumenthal (D–Connecticut)
Barbara Boxer (D–California)
Sherrod Brown (D–Ohio)
Maria Cantwell (D–Washington)
Ben Cardin (D–Maryland)
Chris Coons (D–Delaware)
Dick Durbin (D–Illinois)
Dianne Feinstein (D–California)
Al Franken (D–Minnesota)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D–New York)
Tom Harkin (D–Iowa)
Daniel Inouye (D–Hawaii)
John Kerry (D–Massachusetts)
Amy Klobuchar (D–Minnesota)
Frank Lautenberg (D–New Jersey)
Patrick Leahy (D–Vermont)
Carl Levin (D–Michigan)
Bob Menendez (D–New Jersey)
Jeff Merkley (D–Oregon)
Barbara Mikulski (D–Maryland)
Patty Murray (D–Washington)
Jack Reed (D–Rhode Island)
Bernie Sanders (I–Vermont)
Chuck Schumer (D–New York)
Jeanne Shaheen (D–New Hampshire)
Mark Udall (D–Colorado)
Tom Udall (D–New Mexico)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D–Rhode Island)
Ron Wyden (D–Oregon)
Here's a list of currently serving US senators from the Republican Party who are on record for supporting same-sex marriage:
Harry Reid (D–Nevada)
Daniel Akaka (D–Hawaii)
Max Baucus (D–Montana)
Michael Bennet (D–Colorado)
Richard Blumenthal (D–Connecticut)
Barbara Boxer (D–California)
Sherrod Brown (D–Ohio)
Maria Cantwell (D–Washington)
Ben Cardin (D–Maryland)
Chris Coons (D–Delaware)
Dick Durbin (D–Illinois)
Dianne Feinstein (D–California)
Al Franken (D–Minnesota)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D–New York)
Tom Harkin (D–Iowa)
Daniel Inouye (D–Hawaii)
John Kerry (D–Massachusetts)
Amy Klobuchar (D–Minnesota)
Frank Lautenberg (D–New Jersey)
Patrick Leahy (D–Vermont)
Carl Levin (D–Michigan)
Bob Menendez (D–New Jersey)
Jeff Merkley (D–Oregon)
Barbara Mikulski (D–Maryland)
Patty Murray (D–Washington)
Jack Reed (D–Rhode Island)
Bernie Sanders (I–Vermont)
Chuck Schumer (D–New York)
Jeanne Shaheen (D–New Hampshire)
Mark Udall (D–Colorado)
Tom Udall (D–New Mexico)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D–Rhode Island)
Ron Wyden (D–Oregon)
Here's a list of currently serving US senators from the Republican Party who are on record for supporting same-sex marriage:
Wait, so you're telling me that the Republicans who voted nay did so because their districts are comprised mostly of Republicans, who are opposed to repealing DADT?Terra Firma said:
PhoenixDark
Banned
Find me a handful of republicans who support basic gay rights (not even talking about marriage here). At least 80% of democrat legislators support basic gay rights while less than 10% of republican legislators do. In short, you're wrong and if you had put even the slightest measure of research into the topic, you'd know it.
It would have ended? When? McCain was on record saying we should stay there for years more, perhaps even 100 years. No reason to stay after it became unpopular? The war was unpopular for at least 5 years during Bush's terms and he put no effort into ending it.
A more logical argument for you would have been that the US would likely leave due to Iraq's decision to remove immunity from US soldiers. Bush started the withdrawal process eventually, and Obama carried it out - that's certainly true. Yet given the rhetoric of McCain and other republicans who moved even farther to the right than W Bush on the topic, there's no guarantee we would have left if McCain was president instead of Obama.
On Afhanistan, Romney opposes negotionating with the Taliban, as well as setting a withdrawal date/period. He's on completely opposite sides of the spectrum with Obama on this issue.
I would say again: he doesn't have the clout or position to say what needs to be said: Iran is not a threat to the US, is years away from a nuclear bomb, and is too at war with itself to declare war on anyone else. With respect to covert operations, if they lessen the possibility that Israel unilaterally attacks Iran, I'm all for them.
I think Romney would be forced to support a bailout after another crash of the US economy. Until that point, I think it's more than possible he would reject most stimulus measures.
Right now the US has gone from a slow recovery to pure stagnation. Of course that effects the global market. And if things get worse here - be they at Obama or Romney's hands - global markets will continue to sputter. It's not like Europe is healthy right now outside of a handful of countries
Well, it's true that there is a political edge to it. That said, Americans have the attention spans of a goldfish these days, so it sadly adds even more justification for doing this type of thing during an election year.
PhoenixDark
Banned
First argument: there is no difference between democrats and republicans on gay rights
Second argument: The differences between democrats and republicans on gay rights are due to constituencies
Despite the goal post moving you're still wrong: democrats resoundingly support gay rights, republicans don't. Hell, if it boiled down to districts and constituents, why do republicans in liberal areas reject gay rights? This can be broken down to a state level which would show the same results: democrats supporting gay rights, republicans denying them. From California to Texas.
Byakuya769
Member
Wait.. Obama dropped the gay marriage bomb for political reasons?
Man fuck that guy. I want gays to have the right to get married; I'm not voting for someone who thinks he can use that as a political carrot.
Romney, you've got my vote!
Man fuck that guy. I want gays to have the right to get married; I'm not voting for someone who thinks he can use that as a political carrot.
Romney, you've got my vote!
is this what's supposed to happen?
Aaron Strife
Banned
99% of people who say "Both sides are equally bad" will inevitably find an excuse to justify voting for Republicans, so yes. (scientific poll with margin of error of 1%)
I was going to respond to you but I can see that you are being purposely obtuse and its not even worth it. If you can't tell the differences between the party then you flat out haven't been paying attention to politics or don't know what your talking about.
- Status